The CNN article is talking about a different issue, although it does reference the situation Mike is talking about in the article.
The CNN article is saying that some other services are modifying their services or going away entirely so that they don't face the same fate as Megaupload. It doesn't contradict the main point of Mike's article which is that users are simply going elsewhere. From the CNN article:
However for some, the elimination of Megaupload as a file-hosting option has made vetting pirated content more difficult.
Daniel Raimer, a spokesman for Switzerland-based file host RapidShare, said the company's anti-abuse department has been working overtime since the day last month when Megaupload went offline. The workload is not caused by an increased emphasis on removing copyrighted material, he said, but is necessary to vet a massive influx of files from new customers -- Megaupload's customers.
So ICE once again successfully chased US jobs overseas without reducing piracy or helping the bottom line of any of the *AA companies. Way to go, ICE!
Rapidshare's comment is especially interesting because it implies that lots of legitimate users of Megaupload are being forced to seek off-shore services.
Some school should take them up on the offer, except set it up as a debate format with Mike or some other worthy opponent on the other side. It would be fun to see how fast Paramount could run in the other direction.
In these discussions we miss one source of revenue that the studios see. Right now they have companies like Blockbuster and several On-Demand services paying them up front to delay release through services like Netflix and Redbox (you know, the services people actually like to use).
Companies actually pay the studios for the privilege of getting the movies 28 or 56 days before their rivals.For a business it is awfully hard to pass up a contract with a fixed cash payment as opposed to some diffuse future revenue stream. That may be a foolish perspective in the long run, but it is always tempting to take the immediate cash.
One big problem with early release agreement approach is that many of the early release partners are dying slow and painful deaths. Blockbuster is on life support, and On-Demand services are usually tied to cable television which is suffering from a lack of growth potential and market shrinkage as more people cut the cable.
Another problem delayed release causes is that the later releases kill marketing efforts. At least up until now you could add a movie to your Netflix queue when you see the advertisement for it, then have it show up 28 days later. In the lastest brilliant Hollywood move you can't add it to your queue for 28 days. It delights the dying Blockbuster, of course, but by the time the 28 days expires I no longer remember the movie so I never add it to my queue. What an enlightened business strategy!
>>Torrent search engines are links to stolen movies and music.
VCR's are devices for making illegal copies.
It took the movie industry a few years to get beyond their view of VCR's as evil Boston Strangler copy machines. But they did figure out how to make money on them. Huge amounts of money, in fact. Because the industry figured out how to make money on such an evil contraption they saved the industry itself. Now they have forgotten that they once saw it as evil. Now the ability to sell into the home market that was created by the VCR is what the industry is moaning about loosing.
The industry has not yet figured out how to make money off of torrents. If they don't figure that out they are doomed. If they do figure it out then there is some hope the MPAA companies might be able to save themselves. My guess is that the industry is too inbreed to come up with new ideas. They have done too good a job of convincing themselves that piracy is the cause of all their problems, and they cannot see the opportunities that are staring them in the face.
Porter missed one huge reality shift. A year ago journalists could get away with just using industry-supplied phony statistics and arguments without getting called on it. Yes, Techdirt would call them out, but most mainstream journalists were not even aware that there were sites and blogs like TD. Now a lot of other journalists know that the issue has more to it than industry-sponsored studies. That is probably not good news for Porter's or the NYT's reputation.
So, once again I have to say "Thank you MPAA/RIAA for giving us SOPA." Your hubris has opened a lot of eyes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ACTA is going down in flames in Europe. Some countries are getting more cautions about TPP. Members of Congress no longer automatically run where you point. Great job. We never could have accomplished so much without your help. Please give Chris Dodd and his lackeys an even larger bonus this year; they have done a great service to independent artists around the world.
I don't know why I keep getting drawn back to the stupidity of that chart. Right off the bat he comments about taking a picture in front of a "fake sky screen." Don't they make "fake sky screens" with the explicit intent of having pictures taken in front of them? Why is doing something that most professional photographers have done at some point in their career considered an artistic element worth noting? Why not sue people for taking people riding on top of bicycles? Why not sue people for taking pictures of a hammer hitting a nail?
I also love the "legs in a V shape." If I recall my basic human anatomy legs are jointed to the hip at the top of the leg. Just about any picture of a person in any other position besides having their feet together is going to result in "legs in a V shape." Ditto a bent knee being a V shape.
From the first picture it appears that having the subject's fingers relaxed into a natural curve is a unique artistic feature as well as having the hands holding said relaxed fingers attached to the end of an arm.
How do attorneys who file these types of suits avoid being disbarred?
>>This baffles me. Why can't the networks get this right?
I would add the complaint that they often run the same annoying ad over, and over, and over. It is usually highly targeted to the shows's demographic, and that means it is even more annoying when you are not in that demographic.
The only explanation I can think of as to why they do their online shows so poorly is that none of the executives watch them streaming, or if they do watch a stream is on some internal company streaming system that doesn't suck. My guess is that the executives think of the streaming side of their business as some kind of niche market and they don't realize how many people want their shows that way.
Bogus copyright claims and DCMA claims ought to be a crime. And content should not be taken down under DCMA until the person who posted has a reasonable opportunity to dispute the claim.
Leaving violations up for an extra day or two probably does little damage to the rights holder, but examples like this show how huge the damage can be to the person holding the video.
There was at least a little bit of a start this weekend. NBC did stream the Superbowl. I tried to watch it, but it was difficult. Basically the interface was too fancy, and at the same time it did not do enough. They put the ads in a bar across the bottom after they aired, but if you clicked on an ad there was no easy or at least obvious way to get back to the game except to close the window and start it again. Which of course, mean that you had to watch the intro about how great it was again.
The guy with the glasses that kept badgering you to like them on Facebook was supremely annoying. If I could have hated him on Facebook, I would have gone for that option.
There was a meager feed of game statistics and you had a little bit of choice of camera angles. I would have liked to have seen more, but that aspect was better than what you got on TV. I did miss the opportunity to do DVD tricks like replay and pausing the feed.
Still, I will give NBC credit for at least trying. As it was, the stream was useful for people who cut the cable or who were not in a position to watch it on traditional TV.
>>So are you seriously trying to suggest that anyone who does not show up to a protest counts as someone who doesn't care?
Actually, by industry standard math and accounting standards, anyone who does not show up is counted as a strong supporter. People who just show up are counted as neutral, and only the leaders count as actual supporters. They are probably all Google employees, anyway.
>>The internet doesn't drive culture. Rather, it is the screaming kid in the back seat yelling "are we there yet", "i need to pee" and "I want to go to mcdonalds" over and over again. That the car changes direction at some point to resolve or address these issues doesn't put the internet in the drivers seat.
Rarely have I seen an industry insider post do such a fantastic job of proving the point that Mike was making in the article.
>>Yay now let's all go pirate Angry Birds to make his company even more successful!
If you try to pirate the game, here are some things to consider:
1) You probably don't need to pirate it. You can probably play it for free using a Rovio approved channel. Rovio still makes money from the free version by selling advertising in the game.
2) From the user perspective, not all types of free are equal. In this case "free from Rovio" means that you have to put up with ads (so maybe not entirely free). On the other hand with a pirated copy I have to search out the game and then run a major risk of spyware. So the pirated version is not entirely free, either. It is possible to compete with free, because in the final analysis the authorized version of free is probably a better deal for both the user and the company than the pirated version of free.
3) If I do successfully pirate a safe copy of the game I have not really cost Rovio a penny because I most likely would not have paid for it if that was the only option. However, I might buy some AB merchandise or introduce the game to someone who will pay for it or use the ad-supported version. I might even get hooked enough that I go looking for "AB Seasons" or some other version of the game and end up playing a paid or sponsored version of the game. In addition, if enough people play a certain game it starts to get the attention of investors and other potential business partners. So even if you do go pirate the game you may make them more successful.
On the post: Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
Re:
The CNN article is saying that some other services are modifying their services or going away entirely so that they don't face the same fate as Megaupload. It doesn't contradict the main point of Mike's article which is that users are simply going elsewhere. From the CNN article:
On the post: More Details About Paramount's Offer To Law Schools To Teach Them About The Evils Of 'Content Theft'
On the post: Who's Still Backing SOPA/PIPA... And Why?
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another!) Study Suggests Hollywood's Problem Is Dumb Release Windows That Cost It Money
Re: Re:
Companies actually pay the studios for the privilege of getting the movies 28 or 56 days before their rivals.For a business it is awfully hard to pass up a contract with a fixed cash payment as opposed to some diffuse future revenue stream. That may be a foolish perspective in the long run, but it is always tempting to take the immediate cash.
One big problem with early release agreement approach is that many of the early release partners are dying slow and painful deaths. Blockbuster is on life support, and On-Demand services are usually tied to cable television which is suffering from a lack of growth potential and market shrinkage as more people cut the cable.
Another problem delayed release causes is that the later releases kill marketing efforts. At least up until now you could add a movie to your Netflix queue when you see the advertisement for it, then have it show up 28 days later. In the lastest brilliant Hollywood move you can't add it to your queue for 28 days. It delights the dying Blockbuster, of course, but by the time the 28 days expires I no longer remember the movie so I never add it to my queue. What an enlightened business strategy!
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
Re: Re: Re:
I blame Unity. At least this month.
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
Re: Re:
I am wondering why you are asking, eh?
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
VCR's are devices for making illegal copies.
It took the movie industry a few years to get beyond their view of VCR's as evil Boston Strangler copy machines. But they did figure out how to make money on them. Huge amounts of money, in fact. Because the industry figured out how to make money on such an evil contraption they saved the industry itself. Now they have forgotten that they once saw it as evil. Now the ability to sell into the home market that was created by the VCR is what the industry is moaning about loosing.
The industry has not yet figured out how to make money off of torrents. If they don't figure that out they are doomed. If they do figure it out then there is some hope the MPAA companies might be able to save themselves. My guess is that the industry is too inbreed to come up with new ideas. They have done too good a job of convincing themselves that piracy is the cause of all their problems, and they cannot see the opportunities that are staring them in the face.
On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
So, once again I have to say "Thank you MPAA/RIAA for giving us SOPA." Your hubris has opened a lot of eyes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ACTA is going down in flames in Europe. Some countries are getting more cautions about TPP. Members of Congress no longer automatically run where you point. Great job. We never could have accomplished so much without your help. Please give Chris Dodd and his lackeys an even larger bonus this year; they have done a great service to independent artists around the world.
On the post: Photographer Appeals Ruling Saying It's Not Infringement To Have Vaguely Similar Photos
I also love the "legs in a V shape." If I recall my basic human anatomy legs are jointed to the hip at the top of the leg. Just about any picture of a person in any other position besides having their feet together is going to result in "legs in a V shape." Ditto a bent knee being a V shape.
From the first picture it appears that having the subject's fingers relaxed into a natural curve is a unique artistic feature as well as having the hands holding said relaxed fingers attached to the end of an arm.
How do attorneys who file these types of suits avoid being disbarred?
On the post: Photographer Appeals Ruling Saying It's Not Infringement To Have Vaguely Similar Photos
On the post: Tom Brady Watched Last Year's Super Bowl Via Illegal Stream... And Probably Had A Better Experience Than Anyone Watching NBC's Official Stream
Re: Why can't the networks do streaming right?
I would add the complaint that they often run the same annoying ad over, and over, and over. It is usually highly targeted to the shows's demographic, and that means it is even more annoying when you are not in that demographic.
The only explanation I can think of as to why they do their online shows so poorly is that none of the executives watch them streaming, or if they do watch a stream is on some internal company streaming system that doesn't suck. My guess is that the executives think of the streaming side of their business as some kind of niche market and they don't realize how many people want their shows that way.
On the post: The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial
Leaving violations up for an extra day or two probably does little damage to the rights holder, but examples like this show how huge the damage can be to the person holding the video.
On the post: Romanian Prime Minister Admits He Has No Idea Why Romania Signed ACTA
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
The guy with the glasses that kept badgering you to like them on Facebook was supremely annoying. If I could have hated him on Facebook, I would have gone for that option.
There was a meager feed of game statistics and you had a little bit of choice of camera angles. I would have liked to have seen more, but that aspect was better than what you got on TV. I did miss the opportunity to do DVD tricks like replay and pausing the feed.
Still, I will give NBC credit for at least trying. As it was, the stream was useful for people who cut the cable or who were not in a position to watch it on traditional TV.
On the post: Tom The Dancing Bug Takes On Insanity Of Copyright Extension And Disproportionate Punishment
Berne Convention
On the post: Poland Prime Minister Suspends Any Effort To Ratify ACTA; May Kill ACTA In The EU
Re: Re:
FTW. Newest TD meme.
On the post: Watch Out: Widespread Protests Against ACTA Spreading Across Europe
Re: Re:
Actually, by industry standard math and accounting standards, anyone who does not show up is counted as a strong supporter. People who just show up are counted as neutral, and only the leaders count as actual supporters. They are probably all Google employees, anyway.
On the post: Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now
Re:
Rarely have I seen an industry insider post do such a fantastic job of proving the point that Mike was making in the article.
On the post: Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio (But The Quality Sucks)
Re:
It would be nice to have some supporting evidence from another source, but I doubt that we will ever see any.
On the post: Angry Birds CEO Explains How The Company Embraces Piracy
If you try to pirate the game, here are some things to consider:
1) You probably don't need to pirate it. You can probably play it for free using a Rovio approved channel. Rovio still makes money from the free version by selling advertising in the game.
2) From the user perspective, not all types of free are equal. In this case "free from Rovio" means that you have to put up with ads (so maybe not entirely free). On the other hand with a pirated copy I have to search out the game and then run a major risk of spyware. So the pirated version is not entirely free, either. It is possible to compete with free, because in the final analysis the authorized version of free is probably a better deal for both the user and the company than the pirated version of free.
3) If I do successfully pirate a safe copy of the game I have not really cost Rovio a penny because I most likely would not have paid for it if that was the only option. However, I might buy some AB merchandise or introduce the game to someone who will pay for it or use the ad-supported version. I might even get hooked enough that I go looking for "AB Seasons" or some other version of the game and end up playing a paid or sponsored version of the game. In addition, if enough people play a certain game it starts to get the attention of investors and other potential business partners. So even if you do go pirate the game you may make them more successful.
So you were correct.
Next >>